Catholic Public Theology on YouTube:
The Articulation of Public Theology on Social Media
Terese Norstedt Hedman
Termin: HT20
Kurs: RT2903 Degree Project, 30 hp Nivå: Master of Arts
Handledare: Martin Westerholm
Abstract
This study explores the articulation of Catholic public theology on the social media platform YouTube. To do this it works with both a minimal and maximal definition of public theology and establishes several markers and tasks associated with its identification. It uses Content Analysis to systematize selected materials from four Catholic YouTube channels and establish their status as composite content adapted for computer-mediated communication. This entails looking at manifest and latent content as coherent performances that derives its meaning from both direct speech and associations recruited into it.
The study establishes how the content it examines can be characterized as a fragmented form of public theology that is articulated for a social media platform.
Table of Content
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theory and Method ... 2
2.1. Theory ... 2
2.2. Method ... 3
2.3. Earlier Research ... 4
2.4. Material and selection ... 4
2.5. Disposition ... 6
3. Analysis ... 7
3.1. Theme 1: Composite Content as Coherent Communication on YouTube ... 7
3.2. Theme 2: Perspectives on Political Division and Inequality ... 13
A1. “God, Equality, and the Founding of America” ... 13
A2. “The Authorities Can’t Save You” ... 15
A3. “Boycott Walmart?”... 18
A4. “Why Are We So Divided Right Now?” ... 20
Theme Summary ... 22
3.3. Theme 3: Perspectives on Racism and Civil Unrest ... 23
A5. “On Charlottesville and America’s Original Sin” ... 23
A6. “NFL National Anthem Protests” ... 25
A7. “I’m a bit racist. And so are you.” ... 27
A8. “Racism Isn’t that Complicated” ... 29
Theme Summary ... 32
3.4. Theme 4: Perspectives on Social Norms ... 33
3.4.1. Female Ordination... 33
A9. “Why Won’t Catholicism Allow Women Priests?” ... 34
A10. “#askFrMike Confirmation and Female Priests” ... 35
A11. “Why Can’t the Church Ordain Women Priests?” ... 36
A12. “Why Can’t Women Be Ordained in the Catholic Church” ... 38
Subtheme Summary ... 41
3.4.2. Family ... 42
A13. “On the Childfree Life” ... 42
A14. “Sex in the Catholic Church” ... 44
A15. “Are there too many people?” ... 46
Subtheme Summary ... 51
3.4.3. LGBTQ+ ... 52
A17. “Gay Marriage and the Breakdown of Moral Argument”... 52
A18. “Bruce Jenner and the Transgender Question”... 54
A19. “Responding to Fr. James Martin” ... 56
A20. “Debunking Catholic Myths” ... 59
Subtheme Summary ... 60
3.5. Theme 5: Perspectives on the Coronavirus ... 62
A21. “What Good Might Come From This” ... 62
A22. “On the Coronavirus, Catastrophe, and Contingency” ... 64
A23. “Is Our Freedom Being Taken Away?” ... 66
A24. “Afraid of the Coronavirus?” ... 67
Theme Summary ... 69
3.6. Theme 6: Passive and Active Interaction on YouTube ... 70
4. Conclusion ... 73
4.1. Further Research ... 79
5. Bibliography ... 81
5.1. YouTube Sources ... 83
6. Appendixes ... 85
Appendix A: Accounts by Creator/Channel... 86
Appendix B: Images Recruited into the Accounts ... 87
1
1. Introduction
Social media platforms are a ubiquitous presence in contemporary culture, as a media tool they are influential over public discourse and provide the potential to reach a variety of audiences at their own convenience. Churches and religious representatives appear
increasingly aware of this potential and how to use platforms for effective communication and as a means of influence in public discourse.
This study will look at expressions of theological engagement with public issues on the social media platform YouTube to assess its status as public theology. This is a form theology that branches out beyond faith traditions and is aimed at creating dialogue with wider culture, it seeks a common good without an explicitly expressed missiological intention. Because it is engaged with public issues in public arenas, YouTube is a well-suited medium for this kind of theology as it allows for a wide public distribution and a presentation that is easily understood outside of church and academia.
Because YouTube is a video-sharing platform, I argue that it adds audiovisual requirements to public theology because, as video accounts, the theological engagements become composite content that combines multiple layers of presentation. These layers must function within the logic of the computer-mediated communication used on the platform to attract interaction with the public it seeks to attract.
A public theology formulated for a social media platform is a relevant topic of study as it may indicate how religious representatives (in this case Catholic) are choosing to engage a contemporary public on contextually relevant issues.
1.1. Purpose and Framework
This paper intends to analyze material by Catholic content creators on YouTube to assess in what way their theological engagement can be characterized as a form of public theology formulated for social media.
The guiding questions are:
o In what way can the content be characterized as public theology?
2
2. Theory and Method
2.1.
Theory
The framework of this study operates from an understanding of public theology based on the works of Harold Breitenberg (2003), Katie Day and Sebastian Kim (2017), and Ted Peters (2018). This framework acknowledges that public theology lacks a definitive classification and will work with essential markers as qualifiers for a model that will be associated to social media.
The minimal conceptualization of this model is that public theology extends beyond the “publics” of church and academy to engage in dialogue with wider society; it is primarily interested in public discourse about public issues; it aims to be comprehensible and persuasive to those inside and outside the faith tradition; it is non-authoritative in its truth-claims, speaking with rather than to the public; and it is performative, combining reflection with action (Breitenberg 2003, 61-66; Day and Kim 2017, 10-17; Peters 2018, 157).
It is also considered an attempt to answer the public question “show us what theology can do?” (Day and Kim 2017, 2); this framework will consider the creators’ choice of social media a deliberate attempt to directly respond to this question by adjusting theology to the logic of computer-mediated communication. In the case of YouTube this means audiovisual productions that must combine appealing substance with an appealing presentation able to attract a public to interact with.
It is central to public theology to consider which “public/s” are intended (2017, 11-13). In this model the publics of intent are perceived as public opinion and media. This is partly based on the nature of YouTube’s participatory framework which is defined by physical distance and indeterminate viewership (Dynel 2014, 37-38), meaning that public theology must create interaction with a multivariant public that it is physically removed from. It seeks to influence and create discourse, e.g., with those lacking a faith commitment (Kim 2017, 17), but does so with a scattershot aim intending towards a space for theology in popular culture. It is thus seeking to influence popular opinion and to create a theological media presence.
3 tradition as well as within it, e.g., the real presence of Christ in the eucharist is a confessional issue, while the ordination of women is a public issue with confession-informed responses.
Beyond these minimal characteristics this model adds the maximal definition that public theology ought to fulfill five tasks outlined by Ted Peters. It ought to be, (1) pastoral, (2) apologetic, (3) scientific, (4) political, and (5) prophetic.
Its pastoral task means addressing existential questions of ultimate meaning, e.g., death and destiny, and to give voice to philosophically reflected and meaningful responses.
Its apologetic task means that Christian commitments, doctrines, and symbols are rendered plausible, reasonable, and helpful in modern discourse.
The scientific task means that there is mutual interaction between theology and science, and that theology is well-versed with the intellectual integrity of contemporary science.
Its political task is to contribute with a positive theological angle to a vision of justice and the common good, and its prophetic task is to negatively measure the present against the standard of the Kingdom of God (Peters 2018, 154, 175).
These minimal and maximal definitions will function as a unified framework to assess the content of this study and how it engages the publics it seeks through audiovisual means.
2.2.
Method
For this study Content Analysis has been chosen as an unobtrusive method which utilizes pre-produced content, making it suitable to analyze different forms of communication. In this case it will be used to analyze texts that are produced in a realistic setting, addressing
contextually relevant themes. It has also been chosen for its usefulness, per Lindsey Prior, as a “hybrid method” (Prior, 2014, 362) where the distinction between quantitative and
qualitative is less fixed. This integrative ability is deemed necessary as the study will combine a quantitative set of measurable units even though the focus lies on a qualitative analysis, and it will use Content Analysis to “systematically manage and summarize large quantities of relatively unstructured information” (Nelson & Woods 2014, 111).
The quantitative units consist of statistics regarding the content creators and the content produced, this will include data regarding the content selected for analysis, e.g., level of engagement (likes, comments, views), date of publication, and length of videos. These
4 The qualitative aspect of the study focuses on the texts, i.e., the YouTube videos. These will be regarded as “accounts” of composite content and the method will be used to examine “what has been recruited into the account” and how this is “connected or co-associated” (Prior 2014, 364).
While the primary focus of the analysis will be on the manifest content (speech), the latent content (structure, form, and non-verbal audiovisual elements) is considered significant to the performative and aesthetic layers of the accounts, and part of its production of
meaning.
The content intended for analysis has been selected through method triangulation, quantitative data has been filtered through qualitative categories to isolate and assemble themes coherent with the theoretical framework. The initial categories of triangulation were “most viewed” (in the creator’s publication history), “most recent” (date of publication), and “most contemporary” (issue specific content relating to COVID19 and racism/the Black Lives Matter-movement, chosen for their prevalent news coverage during 2020).
The assembled content was sorted after the qualification of “public issue”, then
arranged according to frequency of occurrence within the four chosen creators. A theme was established if the issue occurred among three out of four creators. Once a theme had been established, additional content was added which had been filtered out by the previous quantitative measurements, but which cohered with the theme. Superfluous content was removed if it did not adhere with a theme.
2.3.
Earlier Research
The research on public theology sourced for this study pertain to the conceptualization and history of public theology, as well as the specific relationship between theology and modern digitized and global culture. While this research functions as indicators of how to understand public theology, they lean towards liberal and Protestant expressions of theology, signifying a need for a closer exploration of conservative and Catholic expressions.
5 The primary material is the content published to YouTube by English speaking Catholic content creators. They have been selected after activity level (active in the last twelve
months); subscriber amount (a minimum of 50 000); and views (a minimum of 1000 000 total views) and narrowed down to four. These categories intend to establish a general level of audience reach, indicating their ability to influence the intended publics. The creators have also been selected for the intentionality of content, i.e., confession-informed content engaging with public issues, intending an engagement with public discourse.
Table A shows the content creators, these are Ascension Presents, Bishop Robert Barron, Breaking in the Habit, and Brian Holdsworth. Two of these represent larger Catholic organizations for online ministry, these are Ascension Presents and Word on Fire. The former is an organization represented on screen by different presenters (lay people, priests, friars, and sisters), the latter is represented by its figurehead Bishop Robert Barron, whose name is on the channel.
The other two channels are represented by creators without an extensive online
ministry. Breaking in the Habit is he personal channel of Franciscan friar (O.F.M) and priest Fr. Casey Cole, and Brian Holdsworth is the self-titled channel of a layman and independent creator. The creators are consistently from North America, speak English, and are
predominantly represented on screen by male presenters; the geographical uniformity means that the focus of issues will be on a North American context, though the reach of the content is global.
As described in section 2.2, the materials were selected for themes (issues covered by most of the channels) established through method triangulation, as well as intentionality of address (aimed at public issues). Some material was eliminated due to space constraints which led to the exclusion of some themes, e.g., abortion and pornography; and the exclusion of some accounts because the creator had already been allotted an account for that theme. A list of excluded material can be found in Appendix C.
6 2.4.2. Secondary Material
The theoretical framework is supported by materials published between 2000-2020 and is to be considered among the most recent and relevant in the field, it includes Harold Breitenberg Jr. (2003) “To Tell the Truth: Will the Real Public Theology Please Stand Up?”; Linell Cady (2014) “Public Theology and the Post Secular Turn”; Ted Peters (2018) “Public Theology: Its Pastoral, Apologetic, Scientific, Political, and Prophetic Tasks”; Scott Paeth (2016) “Whose Public? Which Theology? Signposts on the Way to a 21st Century Public Theology”; as well as Katie Day’s and Sebastian Kim’s (2017) A Companion to Public Theology.
These have been used to center the category of public theology in its epistemological context and to distinguish it from similar fields e.g., Christian ethics and political theology. They elucidate how theology can function in contemporary culture and why, in an
increasingly social media literate cultural system, it is pivotal to look at and attempt to understand the articulations of theology within this type of public arena.
2.5.
Disposition
The content will be presented through six themes, starting with a focus on the audiovisual aspects of the performances and concluding with an assessment of the measurable interaction. The bulk of the analysis will consist of 24 accounts dealing with six public issues. These will be presented in order of publication, not by creator.
Each account will be summarized and analyzed after the theological tasks of public theology and each theme will conclude with a summary.
Theme 1: Composite Content as a Coherent Performance on YouTube Theme 2: Perspectives on Political Division and Inequality
Theme 3: Perspectives on Racism and Civil Unrest Theme 4: Perspectives on Contemporary Social Norms Theme 5: Perspectives on the Coronavirus
7
3. Analysis
3.1.
Theme 1: Composite Content as Coherent Communication on
YouTube
Public theology is “performed” (Day and Kim 2017, 17), in this study it is performed on YouTube and the choice of platform makes it a form of computer-mediated communication (CMC). That means that it attempts to create interaction through audiovisual means in a social space marked by physical distance, indeterminate audiences, and asynchronicity (interaction is not simultaneous) (Dynel 2014, 37-38). As computer-mediated interaction, a recorded performance, public theology becomes composite content that is composed of multiple layers merged into a unified presentation.
The primary element is the manifest content, the speech-act, where the theological perspective on a public issue is addressed. Interconnected with this are secondary elements of latent content, these are part of what is “connected and co-associated” with the accounts (Prior 2014, 364), e.g., how audio or visual cues are used in the performance. The coherence of the performance must consider these two layers of communication to fully understand how public theology functions on YouTube and how it seeks its intended publics.
The analysis will consider latent elements throughout each account but will begin by considering those characterized as formal features. This represents an overall structure of the account and how they contribute to the way the content can be characterized as public theology.
Title and Thumbnail
The title and thumbnail constitute the initial performative elements, they are the first impression of the content’s aesthetic expression while also indicating its substance.
Titles serve this function by being descriptive or provocative in relation to the public issue it intends, e.g., Why Can’t the Church Ordain Women? (A11) is descriptive, it indicates the intention of the content while making it easy to find (searchable) on the platform. Titles like Racism Isn’t That Complicated (A8) or Bruce Jenner and Transgenderism (A18), are more provocative as the former appears to simplify a complex public issue, while the latter may stir a public scepticism regarding the Church’s stance on the issue.
8 The thumbnail is the first visual impression of the performance, it often reiterates the title and combines this with a visual aspect. Images are recruited to serve a descriptive function and are commonly paired with an image of the presenter to create a quasi-introduction that alerts the viewer with whom interaction formally occurs.
Table B shows how they indicate the situation of address, three presenters represent clergy (a bishop, a priest, and a friar) and the thumbnails show through their religious attire that they are speaking from a formal position of authority. The lay presenter’s situation of address is informal, reflected in the non-religious attire.
Table B further shows the stylistic function of thumbnails, demonstrating how the title – or a version of it – is recruited into the image, while other images or facial expressions provide a visual connection to the topic.
The style of the thumbnails is identifiable to each creator and can be considered primers for the public they seek to engage, they are thus the first part of computer-mediated public theology, intending to arouse interest and interaction.1
9
Intros and signature melodies
Three out of four creators (Ascension Presents, Bishop Robert Barron, Brian Holdsworth) make use of formal introduction sequences set to music, this is another performative layer reiterating the title and introducing the public to the presenter and the aesthetic of the channels’ communicative style.
The larger channels (Ascension Presents, Bishop Robert Barron) utilize uncredited melodies which appear composed for their specific use, these are paired with title cards that introduce the name of the presenter, the channel’s logo, and the title of the account. In accounts from 2020 these have been considerably elongated and elaborated upon, indicating that they serve a valued purpose.
Brian Holdsworth follows a similar format, with the distinction of mostly using a melody featuring vocals (chanting “Hallelujah”) and a credited composer (Paul Jernberg). As the only layman, this melodic chanting enhances the sacral atmosphere of the accounts and may alert the uninitiated viewer to the theological intent (a similar task is served by the religious vestments of the other presenters).
The channel Breaking in the Habit only uses a signature melody in three of the
accounts covered, these are included in the series “Catholicism in Focus”, a series introduced by a jaunty upbeat tune which, also uncredited, appears to have been composed for the channel. The channel’s other accounts do not use a specific intro sequence at all. This differentiation indicates that the intro sequence is part of the communicative act and
connected to the type of message the creator wishes to convey. When it merges public issues with specifically doctrinal matters it uses an upbeat melody to give the presentation a lighter mood; but when it engages with public issues from a less doctrinal and more generally theological view, it does not.
The introductions reveal how an audiovisual performance includes elements that are theoretically redundant (has no immediate bearing on the manifest content), but which serve the communicative intent towards the public by branding the content with an identifiable aesthetic that maintains a certain standard of production.
Prior to these intro sequences, some accounts use “teasers”, this is a portion of manifest content (speech-act) that is separate from the main part of the account and which serves to introduce the topic and prepare the public for the content.2
10 Teasers reveal how public theology on social media adopt a manner of CMC by
creating a preparatory segment of introducing issues and intentionality of topic (e.g., critique or caution). This is a manner of guiding the public to the manifest content in an accessible manner that would not be necessary in, e.g., direct interaction and which in other forms of publication may look different.
The usefulness of teasers is suggested through the observation that in accounts from 2020 all four creators have adopted this mode of presentation, while prior to 2017 it is only used by Ascension Presents.3
The introductions, in full, are conversational openings that tacitly acknowledge the elective nature of the platform, allowing the public to form an understanding of the manner of address and intention, before opting for further interaction with the content.
Visual Aspects: Setting, Body Language, and Added Media
The choice of setting for an account presents a deliberate aesthetic that contributes to the characterization of public theology by announcing a mode of address. Through settings that are generally non-authoritative, neutral, or homey, it is indicated how the creators choose to engage the public by embracing a role of speaking with rather than to the public (Day and Kim 2017, 11). They de-emphasize, without eliminating, the religious overtones that may be alienating to the parts of the public that are from another, or without, a faith tradition.
An informal and homey type of setting is used by three of the creators (Ascension Presents, Brian Holdsworth, and Breaking in the Habit), as they appear to use their own residences, filming in either an office area or the living room in front of a fireplace.
Breaking in the Habit occasionally utilizes a green screen to create a non-disruptive background for clarifying doctrinal texts and quotes that appear on screen. It serves the purpose of guiding the public through Church teachings that they may be unfamiliar with and enables a wider public accessibility for the content. It also shows how the setting can aid the performance on social media.
Bishop Barron stands out as more formal; the setting is an office, but it is unclear if it is private or official. It also changes throughout the accounts, but it is notable that the bishop is consistently filmed in front of bookcases, creating an impression of education and erudition rather than overt religiosity.
11 The setting is also important because the body language of the presenters is generally limited by the fact that they are seated during the performance. This means that the visuals are somewhat static and partially relies on the setting to generate interest in what is
happening on the screen. The accounts often recruit additional visuals that generate a sense of movement (keeps the viewer alert) while contributing to the meaning of the manifest content, these will be further detailed in each account.
In terms of latent content, the limits of body language make other modes of
communication noticeable, e.g., the manner of eye-contact. The three more informal creators notably rely on direct eye-contact with the viewer, this creates a pseudo-connection that mimics a direct dyadic and personal interaction between presenter and public.
Again, Bishop Barron deviates by avoiding eye-contact with the viewer, the
performance is directed towards someone who is slightly to the side of the camera, creating a distance to the viewer that appears to imitate the experience a lecture, rather than
participating in a personal conversation.
These modes of communication show that the performances utilize a multiplicity of layers to create a deliberate form of approach that reveals how each creator desires to interact with the public and how they manage the communicative constraints of the platform.
Outros
The outro sequence, together with the intro, bookends the accounts and often plays a similar melody to announce the conclusion of the manifest content. Frequently it is a separate clip or a standard greeting, reused in multiple accounts.
The most significant part of the outro sequence is that the creators encourage the public to active interaction, e.g., by urging them subscribe on YouTube, by urging them to like or comment on the account, but also posting links to their other social media (Facebook,
12
Time span
On Table B.1. one can see how the time span of the accounts generally do not surpass 15 minutes. This appears to adhere to social media practices where content is often low-cost in terms of time investment, i.e., enabling the public to engage with the content in a minimal amount of time.
As it requires that the topics are dealt with in a straightforward communication, this brevity also supports public theology’s rejection of jargon and its emphasis on accessibility (Breitenberg 2003, 66; Peters 2018, 163). This dispensation of intricacy enables the accounts to address complicated issues without making high demands on the public’s pre-existing knowledge of theological concepts or other forms of discourse. It thus generates content likely to be comprehensible to a wider public.
The discourse is distinctly theological but, as the further analysis will show, finds a manner of address that emphasizes a common language in the form of cultural examples, attempting to find common ground with “various conversation partners” (Kim 2017, 12). This short-style format, reliant on direct address (interaction between presenter and audience only), is prevalent among all four creators as the chosen format for tackling public issues.4 The creators do produce confessional content, but these deviate in setting, mode of address (interviews, including a third-party that further distances presenter and viewer), and uses a long-style format.
The short style thus informs the characterization of public theology by creating an accessibility for those who are interested in the issue, but who may not be convinced of the benefits of a theological perspective. It allows them to engage without making demands on their time or their pre-existing level of expertise.
13
Theme Summary
There is a recognizable structure in the accounts, they often conform in formal features while maintaining an individual aesthetic. They are deliberate and aware of how to effectively navigate the limitations of computer-mediated communication by creating a communicative act that attempts to be conversational and which invites to further interaction.
As composite content the accounts are aesthetically conscious, are condensed and accessible, and they intend to attract attention and interaction. These latent aspects serve to create a coherent form of communication that visually, structurally, and audibly, informs and supports the manifest content this study now turns to.
3.2.
Theme 2: Perspectives on Political Division and Inequality
A1. “God, Equality, and the Founding of America”
Presenter: Bishop Robert Barron
Thumbnail: Photo of Bishop Barron against the background image of an American flag. Text, “A video from + Robert Barron” and title of account.
Intro: A clip from the end of the account used as a teaser. A theme sequence set to strings starts to play while the camera pans over the details of the Bishop’s study, this includes a guitar, a bust of Dante, and a portrait of St. Thomas Aquinas. As the music culminates the background is blurred, title appears on screen.
Setting: Official study.
14 contrasted with the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, this to portray how the elitist systems of antiquity were devoid of concepts like equality and inalienable rights.
The argument is that something “happened” between antiquity and Jefferson’s claim that it is self-evident that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”.
Argues that religion is the origin of the idea that all men are created equal and endowed with rights by their creator (emphasis to indicate tone of the presenter). That this is evident as human beings are not equal in e.g., beauty, wealth, or skill; they are only equal when
perceived as children of God. Thus, removing God from the claims of liberal democracy allows inequality to dominate and it quickly leads to the rights of people being alienated, demonstrated in openly atheistic regimes of the past century.
Therefore, one should be wary when people try to drive a wedge between liberal democracy and God, as they are “mutually implicative”, and that the founding of America finds its truth in the simultaneous actions of Thomas Jefferson and Junipero Serra. The latter is a Spanish friar who founded missions on the coast of California, around whose statues there has been a controversy.
The conclusion is that these two men show that democracy and evangelization go hand in hand.
Outro: Bishop Barron, against a grey background, thanking the viewer for watching and encouraging them to subscribe and share the account. An outro melody plays, and the Word on Fire logo shows.
Recruits into it: The political philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, as well as the atheistic philosophies of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pot’s Cambodia, and Castro’s Cuba, these latter examples evoking historical images of tyranny and human suffering. It concludes with Junipero Serra.
Visuals: Portraits of Thomas Jefferson and Junipero Serra.
15 Account Conclusion: The account intends a positive vision of the Christian value foundation of liberal democracy, and addresses this through the perceived emergence of a disconnect in contemporary society between this foundation and its religious roots.
It recruits the examples of classical political philosophy and atheistic political systems to contrast these with the examples of Thomas Jefferson and Junipero Serra. It thus grounds its argument in historical examples of ideas and practices that are meant to impress upon the public the significance religious values have had on the formation of political philosophy and its manmade systems.
The attacks on Serra’s statues, only briefly mentioned, appears to connect to the examples of Stalin et al. and is meant to evoke the worst-case outcomes of the cultural and political process of removing God and religious values from political ideals.
Without direct references to biblical or well-known Christian sources, the account presents an apologetic claim that Christian values protect equality which is based in Jefferson’s understanding of rights. It further stresses that the just ordering of society can only find a coherent and objective cause for human equality in the metaphysical, as the physical reality negates the absolute equality that is treasured in contemporary society.
The account thus creates a positive political vision of Christian values (Peters 2018, 174) meant to unify the public in equality and protect liberal democracy. But it bases its arguments in secular sources, contrasting their negativity with the positive aspect of the metaphysical.
The argument does not appear to seek converts, as public theology tends not to do (2018, 164), but rather to use theology to illuminate how “self-evident” values like equality are properly contextualized by religion, and how the political vision of common good needs a foundation that transcends the merely secular.
Through these means the theological tasks the account fulfils are apologetic and political.
A2. “The Authorities Can’t Save You”
Presenter: Brian Holdsworth
16 Intro: Presenter steps back from the camera and sits down in a green chair, introduces the topic as the signature melody begins to play. The background turns white as logo and title appears and the presenter steps into frame and smiles.
Setting: Private office.
Account Summary: Argues that common ideas of authoritarianism (dictators, war, genocide) are too limited. That authoritarianism also concerns appeals that seem harmless, like “the science is settled”, but which demand submission to a truth claim.
Through G.K. Chesterton it is argued that it is not preferable for a nation to do things perfectly (rule by experts) if this is at the price of passivity and obedience of all the rest. It argues that power is intoxicating and breeds desire for more, stating that, “that’s how greed and lust works, unless there is an ethical imposition in the way…” Indicating a lack of such an imposition.
It suggests that media spin and power biases can hinder reliable conclusions on topics of public interest, and that authority easily transforms knowledge into manipulation. The primary example is President Donald Trump’s suggestion of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment of COVID19. This was negated by a scientific study that was later retracted and further refuted by another study. But political interest and media bias had already shaped the opinion of the mainstream narrative against the drug.
The account cautions that during times of crisis there needs to be extra focus on not letting power go unchecked, especially when there are attempts to “justify some sweeping imposition” based on vague statements. It argues that one should not see authoritarianism everywhere, but that it is important to recognize that there are revolutionary people looking for opportunities to acquire power.
It stresses that it was circumstantial crises that enabled revolutionaries to insinuate themselves and utilize discontent and polarization to disastrous effects in World War I, Hitler’s Germany, and the revolutions of France and Russia.
17 Recruits into it: G.K. Chesterton (author, Catholic convert), The Lancet (science magazine), and Donald Trump (45th president of the U.S.A.) these are all connected to the current
situation, illuminating abuses of power.
The French Revolution, World War I, Germany during Hitler’s regime, and the Russian Revolution are used as cautionary examples of extreme political escalation ignited by
relatively minor or unrelated events.
Visuals: Drawing of G.K. Chesterton, a screenshot of an online article concerning
hydroxychloroquine, and news clips from riots in America, 2020 illustrating a revolutionary mindset.
Context of topic: Published in August 2020 and concerns the Coronavirus lockdowns and the uncertainty of how to prevent and cure the virus.
Account Conclusion: The title of the account is somewhere between provocative and descriptive, it functions as an introduction to the topic which “challenges allegiance to
pseudo-ultimates” (Peters 2018, 161). In this case the authorities, i.e., the worldly institutions whose potential abuses of power it strongly fears and critiques, especially under the
circumstances of the Coronavirus.
The suggestion of the title is that the authorities does not have salvatory capabilities but something else does. However, while it uses the examples of cardinal sins (lust and greed) it does not name them as such; similarly, instead of a distinctly religious source, it recruits an author to argue that faith in worldly powers is a threat to the individual’s ability to freedom and flourishing, including the freedom to dissenting opinion and action.
Like A1 it thus relies on secular sources to direct positive attention towards the
religious through a critique of the present, most strongly through co-associations to historical examples of human alienation and political polarization where conflict turned violent. It uses clips from contemporary riots to illustrate what happens when a political side becomes a matter of ultimate concern (salvation or destruction).
18 The account primarily fulfils a prophetic task which condemns the empirical reality (Peters 2018, 174-176), especially the perception of authority as salvific, connecting to this a discussion on how science can be misused and abused due to power-interests. It somewhat contrasts this with an implicit positive political vision that urges people to challenge sources of power and hold on to higher values (ethical impositions) to protect the rights of citizens. It can thus be said to fulfil a prophetic, a scientific, and a political task.
A3. “Boycott Walmart?”
Presenter: Fr. Casey Cole
Thumbnail: Presenter in his habit, encircled by a blue line, sitting at a desk holding up an open palm over which the Walmart logo has been inserted.
Intro: n/a
Setting: At a desk in front of a brick wall.
Account Summary: Discusses the complex moral dilemmas of engaging with the economy and the specific challenges of big companies like Walmart. It delves into the history of Walmart’s questionable practices, then counters this with what defenders of the company say is good about it.
It suggests that consumers are presented with the option of implicitly supporting big companies with repeated human rights violations, which also increase wealth inequality and engages with other unsustainable practices; or they can choose to boycott even though it will hurt the employees and the communities supported by the presence of these companies.
Argues that there is a third option – to be a voice of reform. To recognize that
companies will not change on their own and that consumers have previously influenced the practices of e.g., McDonalds (improved meat) and Nike (distancing from sweatshops).
States that, “Working conditions, labour rights, equitable pay, environmental sustainability, it all matters”, and argues that Catholics have an important role in building community. That a commitment to Christ means honouring the dignity of all and includes a preferential treatment for the poor.
19
Recruits into it: Walmart and Amazon as examples of big corporations; McDonalds, Nike are utilized to demonstrate both harmful practices of big business and their potential for change. Mentions a documentary on Walmart, possibly Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005). Also mentions the collapse of a Walmart factory in Bangladesh, likely in 2013.
Visuals: n/a
Context of topic: Published in August 2020 it potentially connects to the seven-year long bribery investigation into the Walmart corporation which concluded with a financial settlement in June 2020.
Account Conclusion: The account explains the complexity of choice and the multiple layers of suffering surrounding big corporations and the consumerism that fuels their supply. It does so with the intent to illuminate how, in the intersection of impoverished workers in
communities in America and the disadvantaged laborers abroad who supply the products, the individual consumer’s choice becomes a matter of great significance.
This reveals a “glocal” perspective, a term coined by Clive Pearson (Peters 2018, 159), indicating how global and local concerns are deeply intertwined, and that a troubling division between wealth and poverty is revealed both within America and outside of its borders.
Thus, choice becomes a privilege not awarded to all, placing a responsibility on
consumers to act with social interest in mind. This is framed as a special interest to Catholics whose pastoral concerns includes a “preferential option for the poor” (2018, 161); but the overall intentionality of the account is a positive vision of reform, an action of betterment that extends beyond the ability of Catholics and emphasizes the shared responsibility of each consumer.
20 Through recognition of their own importance in the chain of production and
consumption, the consumer has a capability to choose social solidarity over individual interests, without entirely abandoning the latter.
The account thus serves an apologetic, pastoral, and a political task, focusing on the shared human condition, the meaning and responsibility of building communities, and the positive vision of social solidarity.
A4. “Why Are We So Divided Right Now?”
Presenter: Fr. Mike Schmitz
Thumbnail: Close-up of presenter with a nonplussed expression. Text, “We are Divided and Distracted”.
Intro: Teaser introducing topic, followed by a signature melody and an expanding square flashing through images of each presenter from the channel, concluding with Fr. Schmitz. Fades to white and the title appears surrounded by a yellow border.
Setting: Private living room in front of a fireplace, in the background a framed image of what appears to be the Virgin Mary.5
Account Summary: Argues that though humans are created for community, the primary challenges to unity and purpose are division and distraction. It argues that humans are “distraction machines” who can be distracted by anything from chores to social media. But that in a democracy a citizen is primarily required to do three tasks - get informed, converse about the information and form opinions, and then vote in elections. All else functioning as distraction.
It argues that there is a difference between a “circle of interest” and a “circle of influence”, and that people get caught up in a wide sphere of interest when they ought to focus on meaningful action, i.e., what is within their personal power of influence.
In the political community, it suggests that focus ought to lie on what unites rather than what divides. It contrasts the motto of the college where the presenter works, which is “our diversity is our strength”, with that of the U.S., “e pluribus unum”, to argue that diversity
21 only becomes a strength when it is transcended by cohesion, as individuals are united in families, families in communities, communities into cities, and so on.
To overcome division, the path towards unity is to encounter others with kindness, engage in conversation, and attempt to find commonality.
Outro: Fr. Schmitz urges people to let him know in comments below what they think, continues to speak as the video shrinks and is placed in the top right corner of the screen as it splits into a blue and white side. On the left recommendations to more videos on the channel appears, on the right the original video and below a link to Ascension Press’ purchasable materials.
Recruits into it: The mottos seen above.
Visuals: n/a
Context of topic: Published in October 2020, before the Presidential Election in America.
Account Conclusion:The account constructs a positive vision of what lies within the responsibility of citizens in a democratic nation, rooting this in commitment to information, influence, and interpersonal relationships.
It does not seek consensus but rather the ability of diverse ideologies, through people, to “mutually inform one another and function together cooperatively in society” (Paeth 2016, 472).
It addresses this by relating it to a tendency to distraction, tacitly pointing to the
problems of e.g., social media and its forms of social communication. While it can contribute beneficially with knowledge of events, it also can cause quick chain reactions of enflamed emotions. These often serve to distract and divide as it is outside the influential capacity of the voter and hinders meaningful dialogue and exchange of information.
22 The account, published shortly before an election, fulfills a political task and, like the other accounts, it engages with a public issue but does not focus on overt religious content. This may widen its appeal by focusing on that which unites (desire for less polarization) rather than that which divides (religious affiliations or lack thereof).
Theme Summary
The accounts of this theme are diverse but in response to the question “show us what theology can do”, their cumulative response is the suggestion that it can provide a unifying moral foundation which protects the values of equality without necessitating homogeneity.
From the perspective of a diverse and pluralistic culture, theology is presented as a valuable co-producer in the national community’s self-perception and its ultimate guiding values. Personal interest is reframed as personal responsibility and social solidarity through the individual’s understanding (conviction) and honoring (with action) the shared human condition and equal right to flourishing.
A1 addresses the metaphysical logic behind human rights; A2 shows a skepticism against partisanship that harms the common good and interpersonal relationships, by
hindering truth and alienating political opposition; A3 stress the individual’s responsibility to contribute to the common good even in mundane tasks such as shopping; and A4 stress the citizenry’s responsibility to transcend superficial divisions and distractions. They indicate how public theology is interested in all aspects of human life (Day & Kim 2017, 11), suggesting that the values Christ may inform choice of purchases as well as of vote.
23 Table C.2. shows a summary of what is recruited into the accounts, revealing that they are primarily secular examples which illuminate how the accounts perceive the contemporary condition as problematic.
The negative examples, e.g., World War I, revolutions, or the elitist political ideals of antiquity, serve to elevate the Christian value system in comparison. They are used to demonstrate the negative consequences of overreliance on man-made systems to the neglect of the divine (ultimate) and transcendent values which may aid the production of a genuine common good.
3.3.
Theme 3: Perspectives on Racism and Civil Unrest
A5. “On Charlottesville and America’s Original Sin”
Presenter: Bishop Robert Barron.
24 Intro: Black background, text “Bishop Barron comments on Charlottesville”. A simple musical theme plays.
Setting: Seated in front of a black bookcase.
Account Summary: The account connects the events in Charlottesville, Virginia to Thomas Jefferson and his house Monticello. These are contrasted as simultaneously representing the best and the worst of America, with Monticello being a visual representation of America’s “original sin”, describing that hidden below the line of sight of the mansion are the hovels where Jefferson’s slaves lived. This displays the tension between an ideal and the racial ideologies that is said to have exploded in the Civil War; the Civil Rights movement; Ferguson (2014); and Charlottesville (2017).
The presenter stresses that the phrase original sin is deliberate because the problem is theological, a denial of the imagio dei in other people, and thus needs a theological solution. This resolution to superficial divisions was recognized by St. Paul, and centuries later by Martin Luther King, in the Christian cross.
The cross reveals the worst of humanity, in it all sins are revealed, and all the dysfunctions of humanity are put on display. But it also reveals how despite the sins of humanity, God’s mercy swallows them through Christ.
Outro: Black background, text “for more information go to www.wordonfire.org”.
Recruits into it: Unite the Right-rally (described as “the events” in Charlottesville), the Civil War, Civil Rights, and Thomas Jefferson are all recruited to show the contrast between the idealism of America and the failings to live up to them. St. Paul and Martin Luther King are used to show how theology is the solution.
Visuals: A series of images related to Charlottesville, the Monticello and Thomas Jefferson, including images of the slave hovels. Image of a slave being whipped is used to illustrate a story about Jefferson whipping a slave.
25 Image of Jesus being crucified is used as a visual aid to how the worst of humanity. Then a photo of Martin Luther King giving a sermon, the camera pans up to show a large cross above him.
Context of topic: The account was published in August 2017 after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which turned violent when protestors and counter-protestors clashed.
Account Conclusion: By the brief mention of “the events”, the account assumes common knowledge of the rally and uses it as a stepping off point to address a contemporary resurgence of racial tensions.
In a condemnation of the present, as much as the past, it posits racism as part of the struggle between good and evil which has plagued humanity since the fall. Through this it contrasts the ideal that humans can recognize and form political structures after, but which they appear unable to properly live up to in the broken state of the world.
The stress on the need for a theological solution, along with the recruitment of St. Paul and Martin Luther King, establishes a positive political vision that finds an objective truth of equality in the cross and the shared human creation by God. This vision, while grounded in equality and love, also forces humanity to confront its worst sides and seek mercy from it.
It stresses the need for metaphysical truths to be infused in political systems and racial relationships, and recognizes that humanity is a shared condition, sharing the weakness of sin as well as the promise of salvation, and that it is through people’s recognition of this that the present can be changed.
The theological solution is thus, as seen in A1, to ground equality in the metaphysical and to measure the failings of humanity against the prophetic values of Christianity, rather than in partisan or parochial political interests (Kim 2017, 18).
The tasks the account can be said to fulfil are prophetic (condemning), political (positive), and apologetic (using Christian symbols to illuminate the shared human condition).
A6. “NFL National Anthem Protests”
26 Thumbnail: Presenter looking intently into the camera with a furrowed brow, one fist in front of his face as if covering a cough.
Intro: White screen on which the title appears, set to instrumental theme. Setting: Living room.
Account Summary: Addresses the events of American NFL players kneeling during the national anthem and the emotions strongly associated with this from those on the side of the protestors and those who find the protests objectionable.
The presenter uses his own right to protest outside abortion clinics to suggest that when encountering a protest each person has two choices, either trying to understand the reasons behind it or to dismiss it.
Argues, through G.K. Chesterton, that America is the only country founded on a creed, the flag and anthem are representations of the creed which makes it important to understand whether protestors “don’t believe in the creed” or whether they believe in it but recognize that there is a “gap between the ideal and what’s real”.
While affirming that there are real injustices, the presenter argues that the problem starts in people's hearts and uses St. Paul to stress that before people start telling others what to do, they need to get their “own house in order”.
He quotes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn saying that “the dividing line between good and evil passes through the human heart”. This is used to stress that everyone needs to start with themselves, ask God for help to become the person the world needs them to be.
Outro: White background, link to Ascension Presents’ webpage.
Recruits into it:
GK Chesterton (author, Catholic convert); Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (author,
Russian Orthodox); and St. Paul (1 Timothy 3:1-5) used to emphasize the moralresponsibility of the individual.
Visuals: n/a
27 Account Conclusion: Tackles a concrete and controversial issue connected to racial relations in the U.S., as suggested in its acknowledgement that there were strong feelings on both sides. It does not express an overt support for the protests but reframes the matter to take focus away from the protestor's actions (which the public cannot control) and place focus on the reactions (which is within the control of the individuals of the public).
It takes a pastoral approach that reflects on how the individual ought to react in the face of something they may find objectionable or offensive, with the conclusion that the sum of their reactions responds to either good or evil in their heart. The reaction is either based in love and enables the individual to encounter a protest with openness to its issue, or it is based in a rejection of the other and their pain.
It enhances personal choice in how to respond to a political Other, tacitly suggesting that information and interaction is more important than judging the rectitude of their action.
By using the presenter’s own right to protest for a pro-life cause the matter is contrasted between two political perspectives. It can be considered a position rooted in an apolitical stance as it appears to argue for the right of protest, regardless of the political perspective of the protestor.
The connection to pro-life protests could also be a manner of contextualizing the issue for parts of the audience that may lean towards a pro-life position.
Through Solzhenitsyn it echoes Vatican II’s assessment that worldly problems are connected to the “basic imbalance which is rooted in the heart of man” (John Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes, sec. 10); the use of a cultural source, rather than a doctrinal, indicates the intention towards a wider audience that may be hostile towards clear confessional
expressions.
It fulfils a political task that appears to seek a positive vision which recognizes that patriotism is not inherently problematic but becomes problematic when it produces narrow-minded protectionism and reluctance to dialogue. The upset to the disrespect of the creed, national anthem, and flag, cannot excuse or tolerate any damage the interpersonal bonds with other citizens by attempting to control, dissuade, or otherwise restrain their right of action. The tasks fulfilled are thus pastoral and political.
A7. “I’m a bit racist. And so are you.”
28 Thumbnail: A background split between a black and white side, presenter in the middle, standing with both hands on his neck, head tilted back and eyes gazing upwards in distress. Intro: n/a
Setting: In front of a dark wall decoration covering the whole background.
Account Summary: The account argues that it is erroneous to think of racism as a binary issue, something you either are or are not, or that external factors (having black friends, doing charitable work) can disprove racism.
It suggests that racism exists on a spectrum and is expressed in many ways that does not involve overt violence or hatred, e.g., in the assumption that one’s own experiences are normative while remaining largely disinterested in minority experiences. According to the presenter most racism is the “subtle indifference” or “wilful ignorance” of the Other.
It further suggests that “relational blocks” prevents people from living in solidarity with one another and that everyone is susceptible to prejudiced thinking, including those publicly speaking against it. The presenter stresses that there are no exculpating factors, saying, “I don’t care how nice of a person you are; you can still think and do things that cause immense suffering in the human family.”
To understand and combat racism, people need to start by looking inside themselves, at the parts they would rather not acknowledge, and which are not ready for the Kingdom of God. They also need to look at the current order of society and its structural systems and recognize that there is a need for change, that the systems are not working as they should. It is stressed that it is important to see the individual, not the group, and not to see people as social threats. That it is the responsibility of everyone to work to “uphold the dignity of all of God’s family”, to prepare themselves to live in complete solidarity with those who are not like them.
Outro: Brown background image with a list of Fr. Cole’s other social media accounts.
Recruits into it: n/a
29 Context of topic: Published in May 2020, shortly after the shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky on the 13th May 2020, which sparked discourse on systemic racism in the American justice system.
Account Conclusion:In its suggestion that racism ought not be viewed as a binary matter, the account recruits into it a contemporary form of discourse connected to identity politics. This attempts to undo binary perspectives on e.g., gender and race, by placing it on a
spectrum. It thus merges the prophetic vision of the Kingdom with a social analysis reflecting a liberal form of discourse, extracting from it the language it needs without necessarily adopting its ideals. This may reflect an immersion in popular discourse and awareness of what is comprehensible to a wider public.
The account further judges the tendency of people to hide behind external actions (charity), associations (black friends), as well as internal obfuscations (being “nice”), in attempts to evade personal responsibility to genuinely contribute to an improved racial situation by embracing true solidarity.
Its judgement of the present failure to live up to the ideals of the Kingdom serves both a prophetic task as well as an apologetic in its stress that this is a flaw all of humanity shares, and must continue to struggle with, as no one is immune from in-group biases and internal prejudices.
It fulfils a political task by using the Kingdom as a positive vision against which not only interpersonal relationships ought to be measured, but also the political systems of
government. As seen in A3, by the same creator, gradual reform through debate is a signature of public theology; here this is expressed as reform rooted in personal transformation and extending upwards to political systems. It uses the Kingdom as a positive model towards which reform ought to be measured, i.e., finding complete solidarity in transcendent and metaphysically infused values, the tasks fulfilled are thus apologetic, political, and prophetic.
A8. “Racism Isn’t that Complicated”
Presenter: Brian Holdsworth
30 Intro: Same as A2.
Setting: Private office.
Account Summary: Addresses tensions concerning race in society and argues that all people of “good will” object to racism and its various expressions, but that there are problems in current culture and how it responds to perceived injustice. That language used by politicians, activists, and media, deliberately prevents people from coming together and intentionally exacerbates the issue.
Argues that racism is not only a sin of action but of motivation, and while the former can be judged the latter cannot. The presenter uses Thomas Aquinas to establish that this kind of judgement of motivation reveals contempt, rather than love, of one’s neighbour. It further suggests that this type of judgement enables people to get caught up in a “currency of injustice”, fuelled by an appetite for revenge and escalation, and which media and online discourse encourages.
Suggests that there is a need to be more discerning and to learn to see individuals outside of the “superficial categories” that are imposed on them by politicians, media, or activists' groups that purports to speak for a whole race.
There is a stress that the biblical wisdom of “eye for an eye” is often misunderstood and that what it really means is restraint and proportionality, that Jesus did not mean that we could not judge the explicit action of others, but that the injunction against judging meant that one cannot judge the internal motivations or culpability of another.
The solution to racism is for people to start with themselves and shed any notions of racial superiority for their own group, and then to give their neighbour the benefit of a doubt concerning what motivated their perceived actions.
Outro: Same as A2.
Recruits into it: Martin Luther King, Justin Trudeau, Hitler, Thomas Aquinas, David Dorn (retired police officer killed during BLM protests). Likely, Black Lives Matter as the activist group wishing to speak for a whole race.
31 Trudeau speaking in parliament, and of a black man and of an elderly black woman, both of whom had their property destroyed during the riots.
Context of topic: Published in June 2020, during the protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd on May 25th, 2020, and the media discourse around the Black Lives Matter-movement.
Account Conclusion: Like A7 it addresses the problems of social unity which are blocked by expressions of racism, with the distinction that this account is also polemical against the institutions and actors it perceives as maintaining racial tensions for political purposes. This includes media narratives, activist groups, and progressive politicians.
The polemic implies that racial distinctions are social constructs, and the account serves an apologetic task that seeks to counter these political constructs, perceiving and portraying racism as a symptom of division in the broken state of the world but not as a natural part of the human condition.
In an apologetic manner it argues, through Thomas Aquinas, that the neighbour must be viewed as another self and that in terms of retributive justice, even in the case of wrongdoers, is a judgement that belongs to God, and that no other human can justly perceive the internal guilt of another.
32
Theme Summary
The accounts in this theme are centered around the central point of mankind’s shared nature and origin as equally created by God, which is complimented by personal responsibility to look inside oneself and scrutinize the prejudices blocking solidarity with the Other.
This theme is more overtly confession-informed than the previous and there are clear attempts to re-sacralize public discourse, directing it away from “health, wealth, and
pleasure” (Peters 2018, 173) and towards a sacred order, using language that seeks to make the Kingdom of God comprehensible to a wider audience through an emphasis on love of the neighbor.
What they seek are personal and interpersonal reforms, putting an emphasis on personal reflection and transformation. Racism is thus portrayed as a reaction stemming out of the broken state of humanity with everyone bearing a responsibility to face this brokenness within themselves.
They vary in there approaches somewhat, A5 has a missiological edge to it and its solution to racism may be somewhat obscure to a non-believer. Its metaphysical emphasis of seeing the shared creation with a racialized other does however urge for personal reform, and action, against perceived injustices. A6 urges for openness and dialogue, through the example of protests, to encounter the Other only after confronting the propensity towards evil within the Self. A7 speaks to reforms of self, and in extension to the political systems surrounding the individual, recruiting into it a contrast between majority and minority experiences that suggests that there is a certain systemic presence of injustice in American culture. A8 contrasts this, it agrees with the necessity to start reforming oneself and to reject racism, however its language suggests a perception that the idea of systemic injustices is a political construction only breeding further injustices.
33 and a prophetic judgement of current injustices complement each other (Peters 2018, 176), finding a balance between condemning and uplifting.
The reference reliance still leans towards the cultural and when overt Christian
references are made, they are often general e.g., the biblical citations are placed in parenthesis in Table D.2. because they are not specified by the presenters.
When religious sources may be used there is a tendency to rely on Christian thinkers who also function as cultural references, like authors or political leaders (Chesterton, Solzhenitsyn, or King). This reflects that public theology needs to adjust its language to be able to engage a public that is increasingly pluralistic, global, and secular (Paeth 2016).
As before, when Christian references are used, they anchor the positive vision that the presenters wish to counterbalance negative cultural references with.
3.4.
Theme 4: Perspectives on Social Norms
34
A9. “Why Won’t Catholicism Allow Women Priests?”
Presenter: Bishop Robert Barron
Thumbnail: Background image shows a female priest performing the liturgy, to the right an image of (then) Fr. Barron. Text, “A video from Fr. Robert Barron”.
Intro: n/a
Setting: Unspecified office environment.
Account Summary: Argues that female ordination is a “famously complicated issue”, but that people are too focused on institutional power and that a priest’s role is to serve the laity and make it holy. That they are servants of sanctity whose importance can be overstated and that the ultimate figure of power within the church is the saint.
Saints allow the power of Christ to move through them and transform them, which is the true power to change the world. Sainthood, it argues, is also open to everyone. There are no institutional obstacles, and it suggests, through Thomas Aquinas, that it is simply about willing and wanting it. Stresses that two of the most powerful Catholics of the 19th Century were women.
Outro: n/a
Recruits into it: St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernadette of Lourdes, and St. Thérès of Lisieux as examples of how to become a saint and of powerful female figures within the Church.
Visuals: n/a
Context of topic: Published in May 2009, no obvious issue beyond recurring debates surrounding the question.
Account Conclusion: The account proclaims a prophetic judgement on the this-worldly perception of power, specifically institutional power and its functions. But it places this within a positive vision that reframes the question of female ordination into a question of how power is defined and why.
35 mentioned, as well as Thomas Aquinas. The grandeur of sainthood is reduced to a matter of will and presented as a plausible human experience based only on the individual’s readiness to submit to personal transformation by embodying the teachings of Christ.
It avoids the consideration that sainthood and its power often occur after death, but this consideration is subject to the same kind of prophetic critique as it reveals an emphasis on institutional power in the present, rather than transformation through eternity.
The account, through these means, fulfils an apologetic, prophetic, and political task, which attempts to reframe the vision of institutional power after eternal ideals.
It is notable that this is the oldest account of the study (2009) and it deviates in format by time (1:57 min), by including a third party (an interviewer), by a different setting, by showing the bishop in a standing position, and by lacking an outro. Its lack of deliberate production quality appears to suggest that the content evolved over the years, perhaps with the evolving demands of the platform.
A10. “#askFrMike Confirmation and Female Priests”
Presenter: Fr. Mike Schmitz
Thumbnail: Presenter smiling into the camera, title included.
Intro: Teaser about the topic before a white title card on which the title appears as an instrumental theme plays.
Setting: Living room.
Account Summary: The account primarily deals with question of confirmations sponsors; this analysis will thus focus on the part of the account concerning the question at hand.
It stresses that this is often a heart issue not a head issue, meaning that reasons will not be convincing as they are intellectual rather than emotional. Urges those hurt by the message to know that the Church is not saying that they are considered less as women.
The argument of female priests is centred around what it means to be a priest in the Old Testament, that it is a role not associated with capability or fulfilling a specific function but rather with fatherhood. That the Church cannot ordain women because they cannot be fathers.
